“We need the scenario type of thinking that the security community is so skilled at doing…the integrated thinking that we in the environmental movement need to learn,” said Veening. He pointed out not everyone may think the security sector is the right source for insight on environmental problems, but he suggested listening to the security community’s insights before judging their utility. Veening focused on the larger context of climate change and security and the 2009 climate negotiations in Copenhagen at this standing-room only session, which included Thai, Ecuadorian, and Bangladeshi military officers.

As climate change and security analysts focus on the potential for increased conflict during periods of change in rainfall and land productivity, Jeff McNeely, chief scientist for IUCN and a specialist on environmental impacts during times of conflict, urged consideration of historical cases such as the Anasazi in the American Southwest. Shifting to war’s impact on the environment, McNeely highlighted the loss of fishing livelihoods around Lake Edward. Tilapia populations in the lake collapsed following the slaughter of Central African hippopotamus; the numerous military forces in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo were primary hippo poachers. McNeely called for the creation of transboundary peace parks as a means to build confidence in a wide variety of environmentally rich border areas.

Sherri Goodman, general counsel at the Washington-based CNA Corporation, asserted that “many militaries actually have strong environmental roots.” For instance, she noted, the U.S. military is the third-largest land holder in the United States, and that land is host to the greatest concentration of species in the United States. She argued for militaries to engage one another—and their respective environmental ministries—constructively on these issues. When she was the deputy under secretary of defense for environmental security in both Clinton administrations, Goodman used the environment as an engagement tool with the regional U.S. combatant commands. This engagement can be important for environmental values and understanding but can also develop preventive capacity in the security sector. Goodman recommended IUCN create a task force with NATO that would develop an environmental security tool to improve long-range planning.

Julia Marton-Lefevre, director-general of IUCN, said she took her previous job as rector of University of Peace in Costa Rica because she was “absolutely convinced there is a link between environment and security.” Now in her position as head of IUCN she does “see a role for IUCN” in environment and security. She asked rhetorically, “What can IUCN do in the area of peace and security and environmental security?” IUCN’s members could be part of the machinery to provide early warning of environment and conflict links on the ground. She also said that IUCN is starting to work with militaries in a number of settings. On the multilateral level, IUCN’s observer status at the United Nations presents a key opportunity to bring the messages on environmental security to a variety of forums in the UN system.

Tommy Garnett, director of Environmental Foundation for Africa, said that leaders in West Africa have just started to grapple with climate change in the last few years. Previously, efforts were focused on traditional issues of bad governance, food insecurity, rising incidence of disease, and extreme poverty. Just as parties in West Africa were starting to make progress on the links between these issues and conflict, climate change came into the discussion, and it is causing a lot of confusion, both in the field and analytically. Governments have very little time to deal with climate change, given the pressing nature of conflict and post-conflict challenges. “More attention needs to be given to educating decision-makers in the region on climate change and how it is going to impact on peace and security,” said Garnett.

Garnett called for the international community to switch focus from conflict in “poor countries” to examining conflict in “resource-rich countries with a lot of poor people.” The international community has not helped prevent conflict in places where natural resources were part of the conflict. Garnett recommended investing in prevention rather than pouring so much more money into post-conflict activities.

Susanne Michaelis, head of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Program, was asked what NATO is currently doing in environmental security. She said that environmental protection is part of all NATO operations, and soldiers on the ground have environmental expertise. “But I think NATO must do much, much more,” she added. “It is not enough just to make military operations more environmentally friendly.” Partnership for Peace trust funds and the NATO Science for Peace Program continue to fund concrete projects in vulnerable regions.

Major Piet Wit of the Dutch army was just back from Afghanistan and said flatly that it is critical to go beyond the strategy of winning hearts and minds in post-conflict settings. The hearts-and-minds strategy is too narrow, he said; we need strategies for long-term security. He maintained that there is no security without food security, and achieving it has water, land, economic, and institutional dimensions.

Thanks for this very useful summary of debates. The most important realisation in all this is that everyone who uses the language of security in this context means different things by ‘environmental security’ and ‘climate security’. For some it means human security, for others it refers to traditional understandings of security where the concern is with war, for others yet again, something is a security issue when the military is involved. Though Vouter Weening is right to say that all of them offer some insights into the adverse consequences of climate change, I wonder what they actively contribute to doing something about the causes of global warming? In fact only an effective global environmental regime can successfully address the roots causes of global warming (greenhouse gas emissions). This is to say that effective climate action lies at the level of politicisation not securitisation. Moreover, it is sadly possible that all this ‘security talk’ will divert attention away from the necessity of creating such a global environmental regime, something a lot of countries will want to avoid especially now during the credit crunch. (see Poland http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE4954TO20081006?sp=true)

Best -Rita

http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

Rita,

Thanks for your comment. I think the quick answer is twofold. First, a clarification. Wouter was largely suggesting that the military’s habit of doing long range planning, scenarios, and integrated analysis were models that could and should be adopted by those interested in climate change – particularly integrating social variables, something the IPCC is particularly weak on and scientists often shy away from due to lack of data or accepted measures. He wasn’t suggesting the military had the solutions.

Second, in the US context at least, the CNA Report from the flag officers had a political impact on breaking through the political logjam associated with the partisan divide on climate. In that way, the most important message from the CNA report was civilians in the government had to engage internationally on the MEAs you call and get serious because they (the military) would prefer to avoid having to deal with the effects of climate change that might rise to the level of contributing to threats within a traditional security frame.

Best, Geoff

http://securityandclimate.cna.org David Catarious

Geoff – Thanks for posting the great summary of the IUCN event. We´ve briefed the CNA report (securityandclimate.cna.org) to many audiences over the last year and a half, but I believe this was the first time we´ve spoken to representatives from Africa, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the UK, and the US all at the same time!

In terms of the way forward from here, the idea of holding a war game type of event at the next IUCN is very intriguing. A war game developed around an environmental security theme would be a great way of allowing the security and environmental communities to demonstrate to one another the different skills and perspectives that they have to offer. Developing strong relations here is critical since cooperation among these groups will become increasingly important as the impacts of climate change inexorably continue to rise.

See you back in DC soon!

Regards,

Dave

http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko

David, Thanks for your note. One question that intrigues me in bringing the security and conservation communities together: does the term “war game” conjour up productive or unproductive images for the conservation community? Does that attract or repel people? Do those of us who are comfortable with the security community language, need to use other names that are accurate but perhaps more palatable to the conservation community such as role-playing exercise, scenario, exercise etc? Your thoughts and the thoughts of others most welcome.

http://securityandclimate.cna.org Dave Catarious

Geoff: I think you bring up an excellent point. While “war game” is a comfortable term within the security community, it could likely come off as too militaristic to those in the conservation community (and therefore discourage participation and a true understanding of the event). Being more specific about what the type of event to be held would probably be better; that is, advertising the event in terms of what it will actually be, such as a “tabletop exercise” or a “facilitated discussion about potential future scenarios.”